Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV15840, Date: 2022-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV15840    Hearing Date: August 8, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Plaintiff Grisel Arellano sued defendant Howard Hao Yu based on a motor vehicle collision.  Plaintiff moves to continue trial, which is currently set for September 19, 2022, to an unspecified date, with all pre-trial motion and discovery cutoffs to be based on the new trial date.  Defendant has not filed an opposition to the motion.

ANALYSIS

 “Continuances are granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring a continuance.”  (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 823.)  A trial court has broad discretion in considering a request for a trial continuance.  (Pham v. Nguyen (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 11, 13-18.)  California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332 sets forth factors for the Court to consider in ruling on a motion to continue trial.  Whether the parties have stipulated to the postponement is a relevant factor for consideration.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 595.2, but see Lorraine v. McComb (1934) 220 Cal. 753, 756-757 [finding a stipulation to be merely “directory”].)  

Here, Plaintiff seeks a trial continuance to permit Plaintiff time to conduct necessary discovery with respect to her recent treatment for injuries related to the incident.  According to counsel for Plaintiff, Deedra Alvarado (“Alvarado”), Plaintiff alleges she has suffered injuries, lost significant time from work, and experienced long-term medical injuries as a result of the collision.  (Declaration of Deedra Alvarado, ¶ 2.)  Alvarado states that Plaintiff’s treatment was delayed by the pandemic but she has resumed treatment on June 27, 2022.  (Ibid.)  Finally, Alvarado states that the parties submitted stipulated to the continuance on July 6, 2022, which stipulation was denied by the Court. (Declaration of Deedra Alvarado, ¶ 4.)[1] 

Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff has shown good cause for a trial continuance pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial and orders as follows:

• The trial date, currently set for September 19, 2022, is continued to May 23, 2023 at 8:30 AM in Department 32.

   

• The Final Status Conference, currently set for August 30, 2022, is continued to May 9, 2023 at 10:00 AM in Department 32.

   

• All discovery and pre-trial motion cut-off dates shall be based upon the new trial date of May 23, 2023.

• Per the Discovery Act, the parties shall meet and confer forthwith to schedule and complete all non-expert discovery and to prepare for the completion of expert discovery to obviate the need for a further continuance of the trial. 

   

• No further continuance of the trial absent sufficient good cause. 

   

  Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.